Key Topics in the Emerging Church

Key Topics in the Emerging
Church (1 of 3)

[music]

Dr. Mark Bailey:
Welcome to DTS Dialogue
- Issues of God in Culture. I'm your host, Mark
Bailey. I have the privilege of serving as President of Dallas
Theological Seminary.

Today we want to interact on "key topics in the emerging church." We
have already dialogued on the general topic of the emerging church in
an earlier podcast. We want to take the opportunity today to dig in a
little bit deeper.

Gentlemen, welcome to the studio. Thank you for joining me today. I
want to begin with a question. Glenn, let me start with you. As a way
of refresher for those who may or may not have listened to our previous
podcast, how have those identifying themselves as a part of the
emerging conversation characterized themselves?

Dr. Glenn Kreider:
The language of the emerging church is intended to describe what the
church looks like as it emerges out and as it's contextualized in
contemporary cultures to recognize that the church in a postmodern
world is different in its practices at least than the church in the
modern world.

A recent essay, which I think is probably best definitional essay I
have read recently, is by Scott McKnight called "Five Streams of the
Emerging Church" in the February 2000 issue of Christianity Today.
McKnight identifies five major streams. He gives them all "Ps" - so we
have prophetic, postmodern, praxis-oriented, post-evangelical and
political.

By prophetic, he says they are at least provocative. These are people
that believe that the church needs to change and that the church ought
to reflect the culture in which it is found and that the church, as it
has been done, is not as effective in the postmodern world.

Which leads to the second "P," postmodern, which he, I think rightly,
defines as skepticism toward the meta-narrative. There is an
epistemological hesitancy. There is a hesitancy to affirm certainty and
particularly certainty of our knowledge.

The third is that it is praxis-oriented, particularly in terms of
worship, very experiential and sensory worship experience. Orthopraxy,
right living, not simply right belief or a reaction against what is
perceived to be with an emphasis on right belief and denial of emphasis
on Orthopraxy. It is missional, which McKnight identifies as
participation in God's redemptive activity in the world; that missions
according to emergent folks, is not something the church does. But the
church is missional because God is missional, whether it is his glory,
his revelation or however missional is defined. It is God's work in the
world, which is the church's function.

It is post-evangelical, which is perhaps the most controversial of the
"P" streams he identifies. It is a reaction against evangelicalism. In
the same way he says that neo-evangelical was post-fundamentalist. I
think it is the case that the emerging and emergent church is
reactionary. He might perhaps have overstated the use of
post-evangelical language there.

And fifth, the emerging church folks he says identify themselves as
political, by which he means not simply involvement in political issues
but also in social issues. I think there is a place where he is
stretching the alliteration to find a fifth "P." But the point, I think
is well taken and well made that the emerging folks are very
intentional about involvement in social issues.

He would say and I would want to be very careful to say that in these
five streams we don't have a sine qua non approach to the definition of
a movement in conversation. But these are the kinds of characteristics,
which seem to be found among those who would identify themselves as
emerging or emergent, which if I may, I think is an important
definitional matter that ought to be addressed to. It does seem to be
helpful to distinguish between churches that are people that are
organizations that would identify themselves as emerging and does which
would identify themselves as emergent.

The emergent language seems to be connected to the Emergent Village,
folks like Brian McLaren and Tony Jones who is the director of Emergent
Village now. Emerging is a more loose conversational and less
organizational term to designate churches that are emergent-like. There
was a time when the two terms were used pretty well interchangeably.
But Mark Driscoll has written several articles and in his most recent
book he talks about how important it is to distinguish, partly for his
own purposes, that he is perfectly comfortable identifying himself as
emerging but wants to distance himself from the emergent conversation,
which he was part of in the beginning.

I think he is right about helping to separate those two streams.

Mark Bailey: Andy or Mark, do
you have any additions with which you want to chime in there?

Dr. Mark Heinemann: I guess
it is just important to see that there is a lot of variety out there.
Mark Bailey: Some would define as concept differently
depending on their own
particular nuance of ministry as well in terms of, like you said,
emerging. And the attempt to deal with the emerging generation may be a
different definition than the emergent or even somebody else's
definition of emerging. And so I think it is important for all of us
not to overly label someone using that terminology as reflecting one of
those theologies that might be represented within either of those two
streams.

Glenn:
I think it is helpful to note that Scott McKnight is sympathetic
towards emerging folks and had some very positive things to say and
that the people for whom he speaks, the movement that he is
representing has been pretty positive in saying that, yeah, this really
does describe who and what we are.

And again, not to say that non-emerging churches are not
praxis-oriented, are not experiential, and are not involved in social
activity because to the degree to which they are Christian, they should
be and are. But these are things that are particularly of value and
emphasized and are intentional on the part of the emerging church
folks.

Mark Bailey:
Great. Andy, what is to be appreciated by those who would identify
themselves or about those who would identify themselves as a part of
the emerging or the emergent movement?

Dr. Andy Seidel:
Actually, I think there is a lot to be appreciated. They are like any
movement that comes out of an existing group because they have
recognized some areas that need to be dealt with. So one of the things
I think that is very positive about them is that they really make an
effort to seek to understand the culture in which we are involved now
with the purpose of how do you reach that culture? How do you speak in
ways that the people in that culture will understand? So I think that
is probably the most positive thing out of it.

The other thing that I think is terrific is that through all of the
emergent discussion, really pretty much from the beginning, there has
been an emphasis on the missional aspects of Christianity, the
awareness that Christ has put us here for a purpose, left the church
here for a purpose. He didn't say to the disciples, "Go into all the
world and do church". He said, "Go into all the world and make
disciples". So they are asking the question, "How do we do that and
what do we need to understand about people in order to do that?"

I think in that understanding, they are really touching on something
that I think all of us have to deal with significantly. That is that
the whole nature of change has itself changed. What they term
discontinuous change, that it's happening so fast that is not really
just a matter of adapting a little bit here and there. We have to look
at our paradigms and ask if we have the right paradigms to meet this
challenge of the kind of change that is coming upon us.

People have been talking about that for a long time. "Change is
avalanching upon us" is one of the terms that an earlier writer used in
that and that we are grotesquely unprepared to deal with it. They are
trying to really look at that issue and say, "How do we deal with this
significant change that is happening and is going to continue to
happen?" They say things like, "The realization today is that every
generation is a whole new culture and we have to learn to be able to
shift much more rapidly than we had to in the past."

So I think in those ways in particular, they will really help us in our
biblical commands to be missional and to reach this world.

Mark Bailey:
I have read in some books about the emerging church that 2003/2004 was
a pivotal time frame for following 9/11, following the global fight on
terror. So that may speak to how rapidly this movement is seeking to
adjust as well. I know that they are expecting even more radical
change.

Andy: Yes.

Mark Bailey: And wanting to
stay poised for that.

Andy:
Yes. From a secular sense there is a lot of discussion out about
globalism and how everything has changed. Everything is interdependent
now. What happens in one part of the world is going to drastically
impact other parts of the world and particularly us because we are
dependent in a lot of ways on the production and the economic situation
in many, many other countries. We just had the little blip in the stock
market because the stocks of China - I don't understand all that - had
a sell off there and it hit us big the next day. I think that's going
to make a much more unstable situation.

Mark Bailey:
Mark, if I could address a question to you. What is the passionate
reaction? What's the driving passion or a couple of the driving
passions that have created this emerging movement?

Mark Heinemann:
Well, the list could be long. I think people both within the movement
and without the movement would say, "yes, there is a lot of reaction
here against things." Some of those things have a long history like
hypocrisy. It seems like in the last decade there has just been a
constant flow out of various confessions of leaders who have fallen,
leaders who have betrayed their people. They have taken money. They
have sexually abused. They have done this and that.

So there are things like that. But there are other more specific things
to our particular time and place and history. Dan Kimball has just
recently come out with a book called, They Like Jesus but They Don't
Like the Church. I think he brings out five there that
would work as well as any to really answer your question. Just briefly,
they are these.

He says what emerging generations think about the church, first of all
is that it is an organized religion with a political agenda. So here
you have got the flavor of well-known Christian leaders supposedly
saying things like, "We have to make America a Christian nation. We
have to return to our Christian heritage" and they might even get into
political parties. Whereas Kimball is saying that what we don't want is
an organized religion with a political agenda. We want an organized
community with a heart to serve others. So it is not a jingoistic kind
of triumphalistic religion that we've got but it's a religion that
comes alongside it is willing to serve anyone.

Our political agenda is the same agenda Christ had when he stood up in
the synagogue and quoted Isaiah 61. He came to bind up the people with
wounds and to help the weak and we obviously know a number of other
things as well. But it is very interesting that he happened to choose
that particular place to quote and coming out as the Messiah for the
first time.

Another thing the Kimball says is that the church is judgmental in the
negative. You don't have to watch much TV or read the papers to see
that the media just love to beat that drum. He says that to a certain
extent we have earned a reputation and we need to get back to seeing
ourselves as positive agents of change, loving others as Christ would
love.

So this organized religion with the agenda, the judgmental and negative
aspects and then here are a few more. One is the church is dominated by
males and oppresses females. This is not just something peculiar to the
emergent church or to the emerging churches but it really finds a home
there. Certain brands of Christian feminism find a home there in the
movement and feel that that is a place where they have a platform.
Kimball says the answer to that is that the Christian church, when at
its best, holds women in the highest respect and includes them in the
leadership in appropriate ways.

Another one is that the church is homophobic. Kimball says that this is
just something that is not going to go away and that we have to learn
to be a loving and welcoming community and not treat homosexuals as
untouchables and people with whom we cannot converse, people that we
cannot love, people that we cannot serve.

And then there are two more. One, and this is a biggie - "The church
arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong". This is a huge
element. I think of protest in this group. We could spend our whole
conversation on that, but what Kimball pleads for is a respect other
peoples beliefs and faith and a willingness to listen to their story
and not see every encounter as something where we have to give our
story, we have to convince, we have to control, that sort of thing. But
it's a matter of respect, as I think he sees Jesus doing.

And the last thing is a huge one and particularly important to us here
at Dallas Seminary and that is the notion that people would say, "Well,
the church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible
literally", and that obviously is absurd. Kimball says the answer to
that is that we need to hold our beliefs with humility. He thinks that
there is an arrogance many times. We are kind of saying that we have it
wrapped. We know all there is to know about that subject. We know we
are right. And it's hard to be humble when you're right.

He says no. You have got to have humility and strive to be thoughtful
theologians in all these discussions that we found ourselves in two,
three or four decades ago were not the daily bread. But today in the
workplace, in the neighborhood, all of these positions are there and we
have to learn how to be Christ like in these encounters. I think he
gives us a representative list of things that people are reacting
against.

Glenn:
I think what is important about that too, Mark is that what we have
here is not Kimball's evaluation of what is going on in the world but
this book reflects his conversations and interactions and what people
were telling him. His intent then is to in each church is have a church
which addresses those concerns and which is responsive to those
concerns; that is distinctly Christian but does put up those kind of
barriers and hindrances to people of faith.

What will be interesting is the follow-up to that book which is
called I Like
Jesus but Not the Church
we're Kimball will actually speak himself about his own criticism of
the church and the establishment. This is a real tension in this
conversation and in any conversation. I think we do need to hear the
way that those outside of the church perceive us, and to have a
non-defensive and non-argumentative kind of response. If somebody says
that you are unloving and I respond by saying, "No, I'm not!" that's
really not very helpful. We need the kind of thick skin and the
humility as you brought out and to say that apparently I am not being
as effective as I wanted to be in communicating my Savior, so how can I
do that a little bit better. I really did appreciate that book too and
the way he walks that line.

Mark Heinemann:
Yeah, in each of the chapters with fairly lengthy quotes from actual
people, what they thought before they came to Christ and in some cases
what they thought afterwards, there is a real feeling of that this is
what is out on the street.

Glenn:
And unless there is a misunderstanding there, Kimball does at times
take a pretty strong stance on truth issues like the homosexuality
question for example. And it's not a case of saying, "Well we handle
the charge that we are homophobic by refusing to speak to that issue."
He says some really strong, firm, biblically based, orthodox, Christian
things about those kinds of issues too and expresses - again a thing I
really appreciated it - the kind of turmoil that brings for
him to
have to say to people, "I'm sorry but this is the truth and we are
committed to historic Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the creeds
and the Christian tradition."

Mark Heinemann:
Yeah, yeah. The incident out of his book where he is in the coffee shop
or what ever it is weeping with this woman because he has to tell her
that this is what the Bible says. That was pretty moving. There was a
real sense of Christ-likeness I thought in that loving approach that he
took.

Mark Bailey:
Dan would be an example of someone with a high view of Scripture who is
seeking to make a mark in a missional environment within church
ministry there in Santa Cruz. So I think that what he says, coming from
a similar theological background as those of us who sit around this
table, rings out to us to think. I think those are some great things
Mark that you have raised.

Glenn, we have hinted at it, but let me, with a more formal question.
Explain the move or some of the movement away from more formal
statements of doctrine or doctrinal statements to more narrative
presentations of truth. What is meant by that kind of a move?

Glenn:
There has been a recognition, which I find incredibly helpful that the
Bible is not only a set of stories, but it is a set of stories that
tell a story, the story of God's work of redemption in the world, His
work of creation, the fall and then recreation. And that the stories in
Scripture are tellings of that story. So much, and I don't want to make
up statistics to support this - I don't know how much of the Bible is
narrative and how much is not, but I think it is the case - that much
of the Bible is.

There is a charge, and I think it has some validity that theology has
been done and that ministry has been done and that systematic theology
particularly has been done according to categories that are then
imposed upon the story and the stories are turned into something other
than the stories to make them theological. Many in the postmodern world
and in the emerging conversation are interested in doing theology from
a story perspective.

One of the things that McKnight says, which makes me really nervous, is
that he characterizes the post-evangelical stream as a post-systematic
theology perspective. I confess that I really don't know what that
means. I think I know what it means to talk about systematic theology
being done differently than in a scholastic kind of manner and way. But
in order to do theology as story without those kinds of theological
conclusions and deductions, it might be if not impossible, incredibly
difficult. I find myself in teaching systematic theology to be teaching
from a biblical-theological perspective how God reveals himself over
time, progressively and biblical story and continuing today as well.

But, for example, we can talk about the Fall and the impact of the
caretaker's rebellion against the Creator. It introduces death into the
created order and into their lives. Animals die and the entire created
order is cursed. But somewhere we need to stop and step back and ask
the questions, "What does that story, what does what happened in that
historical event have to do with me and with us? How do we handle the
questions, which have traditionally been called total depravity and
original sin?"

Those kinds of categories, it seems to me, are necessary to address. On
one hand we need to appreciate the narrative approach and the use of
stories. But it's not either systematic theology according to this way
or systematic theology according to this way, but much more of a
both/and. I think what often happens in reactionary movements is that
the pendulum swings too far over here. And having said some really
nice, positive things about Kimball's book, and there is so much in
there to affirm, I think at the very core there is a fundamental flaw
in assuming the possibility of separating Jesus from the church. So we
ought to hear people's criticism of the church and their love and
respect for Jesus. At the same time, you cannot have Jesus apart from
the church. "You cannot care for me with no regard for her" Derek Webb
puts it in the song called "The Church". I think that is so important,
that we, in our dealing with things in terms of black and white or on
the borders of either/or and reactionism that we sometimes come back
and say that we have to pull these things together and hold these
things together. This is why I am really interested to see what happens
in the follow-up volume that Kimball is writing now.

[music]

Announcer: For more
information about Dallas Theological Seminary, please visit us on the
web at www.dts.edu.